Q/A
A: Trinity

the last question made me laugh a little ) i know that the questions are retorical but the second one holds the answer i think

The term “we” is referring to the holy trinity, it is a gesture to let us know that that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have always been and will always be.

There are a-lot of interesting choice of words in these chapters. Lots of him, them, we, us, our. I am looking forward to reading through the whole Bible. One thing that I would encourage everybody to do that reads the Bible is to look for Jesus in every thing. Luke 24:27 “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”

I read some good commentary on your question last night, one classic objection to the answer “Is he referring to the other angelic beings in Heaven with him” is that God said let us make man in “OUR IMAGE” and humans are not made in the image of angelic beings, or heavenly hosts, as best we understand them, so the logic would mean that God is only talking to himself, in either the royal sense, or in the trinity sense.

I hope we can get some good dialog going during this process. Maybe we could do a lunch once a week to discuss the readings in person???

I think one bad habit we have as modern interpreters of this ancient text, is when we try to read our current cultural context and views back into the text. The result, is that we could loose the context and intentions of the original authors. I think Josh’s suggestion is an example of that common mistake. If we read it with some agenda or superimpose a later meaning on top of the text (a meaning the authors could never have had), can we really expect to end up understanding what the authors actually meant? For example, could it really mean the “trinity” when it says “we”, because the authors did not have a trinitarian view? The idea of the trinity was not developed for many, many centuries.

Genesis is collection of texts written by several different authors. If you are new to studying the sources of our scripture, you might read up a bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

The first chapter is a “P” text. That means it was likely written by Jewish “P”riests during exhile in Babylon. It is helpful to know that chapter 1 comes from a later source than the other creation story in chapter 2. Chapter 1 seems to take the earlier story and rewrite it for the purpose of liturgy (It turns the story into a rhythmic poem or song used in worship). Notice the repeated chorus, “and God said it was good”. Some people get hung up on there being two contradictory stories, but that shouldn’t be a problem if we realize it was written by different groups of people spanning several generations. Each had different audiences and different purposes. Neither are meant to be historical accounts of a literal “creation event”. Go back and read the 2 stories in the order they were written and notice the change to a more liturgical poetic approach.

If we remember that many of these stories were written and edited (during exhile around 500 BC), then if we think about the Garden of Eden story in that original context, it starts to make more sense. That story is developed by these Jewish authors mourning the loss of their precious promised land, and the destruction of the temple (their “Eden” and their access point to God’s presence). The story comes alive as a metaphor for the paradise they lost and the temple that had previously provided access (fellowship) to their God. We know from archeology that the Babylonians worshiped a snake (their fertility god) and many of the Jews had began to inter-marry and have pluralistic worship with the Babylonians. The authors blamed the defeat of Israel on that infidelity (temptation and betrayal) and wrote or edited this story to reflect the “snake’s” attempts to lure Israel away from God. This more “in context” reading of the story frees it from the baggage of modern people who sometimes try to read it as if it was a literal modern history or science text book. Instead, it’s poetic symbolic art expressing the real concern of real people about the loss of their paradise and communion with God. That kind of reading preserves the original context, and stops us from trying to use the Bible as a weapon in opposition to science and reason. We can then see that scripture and reason are completely compatible and we don’t have to chose sides.

peace

In response to mike’s comment…
“For example, could it really mean the “trinity” when it says “we”, because the authors did not have a trinitarian view? The idea of the trinity was not developed for many, many centuries.” The idea of the trinity was not given a label for many many centuries, b/c it had not yet been revealed, and still was not given a label until centuries after Christ’s time, but that in no way means it didn’t exist. However in context of the author’s worldview, you are probably right in that it is a royal “we”, with the Trinity not having been fully revealed or understood at that time.

As for this comment “I think Josh’s suggestion is an example of that common mistake. If we read it with some agenda or superimpose a later meaning on top of the text (a meaning the authors could never have had), can we really expect to end up understanding what the authors actually meant?” Josh is not implying that we add a hidden agenda, but rather see more clearly the imagery that much of old testament was foreshadowing. As Josh pointed out, Jesus said so himself. I agree with Josh, I have a red highlighter that I use in the Old Testament when I see pictures of Christ, it is amazing, how much is there, when you just open your eyes, it simply further solidifies the fact that the bible has one ultimate author.

@Scott: I didn’t mean to imply Josh was suggesting hidden agenda’s. I trust his motivation (which seems like a healthy desire for Jesus!). I do think we all can “see Jesus” in the texts just like we might “see Jesus” in another person or a movie. Maybe that is what Josh meant?

I’m glad to see some office God-talk in the Powerseve gang! Thanks for getting this rolling, Patrick!

All through the Old Testament, “God” is depicted as some sort of commander of a spaceship crew. Where exactly “they” come from, is not really explained.

When a Christian rationalizes the “we” plurality by saying it refers to “Father, Son & Holy Ghost”, they are not basing this explanation on the bible, but on church dogma – which more often than not, has nothing to do with the bible!